How to ban guns without firing a single shot! (3 Viewers)

[natman]

Wrong! I don't have my own "interpretation". Heller is inconsistent with the interpretation of all reputable historians and linguists who have analyzed Scalia's legislation.

Only if you define "reputable" as those who agree with you.

But the thread I referenced is intended for anybody who believes that judges making up crap to justify rulings is a bad thing. Obviously you don't care.

So, every one of the multitudes of Supreme Court justices over the centuries who said that the Second is an individual right were "making up crap to justify rulings".

I just thought I'd try. The quest for a serious poster to "set me straight" continues...

The dissenting opinion corrects several inaccuracies in the Scalia legislation. But there are no historians or linguists in the Supreme Court. REAL historians and linguists have been debunking Scalia's nonsense since the day it was enacted.

Anyway... you just made it clear that you are not interested in the 2nd A. Not much one can do about that.

So... thanks for playing!

So, having been proven wrong you pretend it didn't happen, declare victory and ride away. It's not going to change the fact that Heller was consistent with a long history of Supreme Court citations and your delusional claim to the contrary is flat out wrong.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

They do dude. Judges in every state already have the power to take firearms

False! Only 21 states have Red Flag Laws.

Are you up for a SERIOUS discussion or just looking to waste our time. Please READ MY SIG!!!!

They all take resources and attention.

Ok. So your best argument is that they cost money. I don't know how much you think it costs to pass a law making it illegal to sell assault weapons. But it doesn't appear to be too much more than the cost of cleaning up the mess from just ONE classroom in the next school shooting.

But, if that's all you got, my case is made....!

 

[CLAX1911]

Only if you define "reputable" as those who agree with you.

Yep he's biased. In a very fascistic way.

So, every one of the multitudes of Supreme Court justices over the centuries who said that the Second is an individual right were "making up crap to justify rulings".

I would go further and say the idea that it's a collective right was the brainchild of the ku Klux Klan he doesn't know that. I can give you the information you can see for yourself if you're interested

And he's making this argument before the exact same reason the ku Klux Klan did to oppress peopleY

So, having been proven wrong you pretend it didn't happen, declare victory and ride away. It's not going to change the fact that Heller was consistent with a long history of Supreme Court citations and your delusional claim to the contrary is flat out wrong.

Seems like it's a religion for some people.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

They can. In fact if they're illegal it makes them more valuable.

Manufacturers are going to produce guns to sell illegally????

Ok.. This is where any semblance of a serious debate disappears.

Thanks for playing....

 

[CLAX1911]

False! Only 21 states have Red Flag Laws.

That's the ability to take firearms before adjudication or due process. Every state in every city and every jurisdiction has the ability to take them after the process.

Are you up for a SERIOUS discussion or just looking to waste our time. Please READ MY SIG!!!!

It doesn't matter your time is worthless.

Ok. So your best argument is that they cost money. I don't know how much you think it costs to pass a law making it illegal to sell assault weapons.

Passing laws doesn't do anything. They have to be enforced.

It's not that it costs money it's that it wastes money.

Being assault weapons and spindle this time thinking about it when their use is really very limited when it comes to criminal behavior.

It may be pennywise but it's pound foolish

But it doesn't appear to be too much more than the cost of cleaning up the mess from just ONE classroom in the next school shooting.

Well that'll still happen it's just people that would have never done that aren't going to be able to have them.

Gun legislation to focused on lawful ownership completely ignores the problem you're talking about

But, if that's all you got, my case is made....!

What case that you're incompetent? That was made in the OP.

 

[CLAX1911]

Manufacturers are going to produce guns to sell illegally????

Yes.

Ok.. This is where any semblance of a serious debate disappears.

The second someone makes a point that you can't argue against.

Is that what you learned in college to run away screaming every time someone makes a point.

Thanks for playing....

Thanks for losing.

 

[RF667799]

Manufacturers are going to produce guns to sell illegally????

Ok.. This is where any semblance of a serious debate disappears.

Thanks for playing....

Manufacturers currently produce guns to sell illegally. Of course, these manufacturers don't have names like Smith&Wesson, or Browning, or the other manufacturers that operate under the supervision of the federal government.

That you apparently think that markets don't arise to fill needs is where the serious debate disappeared.

 

[RF667799]

False! Only 21 states have Red Flag Laws.

Are you up for a SERIOUS discussion or just looking to waste our time. Please READ MY SIG!!!!




Ok. So your best argument is that they cost money. I don't know how much you think it costs to pass a law making it illegal to sell assault weapons. But it doesn't appear to be too much more than the cost of cleaning up the mess from just ONE classroom in the next school shooting.

But, if that's all you got, my case is made....!

Quick! Start another thread announcing your victory!

Were you not paying attention when I told you that cost is how a great many of these decisions are made? Traffic fatalities could be virtually eliminated- without banning personal motor vehicles, but the cost and inconvenience would be too high. You might likely argue in opposition yourself. If you do, it would be because you feel personally invested in keeping your use of motor vehicles exactly as it is, no matter how many dead children that results from allowing that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Manufacturers currently produce guns to sell illegally. Of course, these manufacturers don't have names like Smith&Wesson, or Browning, or the other manufacturers that operate under the supervision of the federal government.

That you apparently think that markets don't arise to fill needs is where the serious debate disappeared.

Well he's making the same mistake any dictator makes. He thinks you can have absolute control. And I'm willing to bet he maintains the idea that you can keep absolute control with threatening and abusing people.

Humans have done this already it never works every time it's tried it fails.

 

[CLAX1911]

Quick! Start another thread announcing your victory!

Just see this as a tattoo on the forehead of IQ= or <115.

Something referred to as mid-wittery. They want so desperately to be seen as intelligent. They don't care about being right or wrong they care about winning some imaginary contest.

Were you not paying attention when I told you that cost is how a great many of these decisions are made? Traffic fatalities could be virtually eliminated- without banning personal motor vehicles, but the cost and inconvenience would be too high. You might likely argue in opposition yourself. If you do, it would be because you feel personally invested in keeping your use of motor vehicles exactly as it is, no matter how many dead children that results from allowing that.

The dead children meme is evoked to Garner emotional response nothing else. Is manipulation a standard tactic of a midwit.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

That's the ability to take firearms before adjudication or due process.

aka Red Flag laws. So now it's clear you didn't know what we were talking about. And the time lost trying to explain it to you was uncalled for.

Anyway... somebody who believes that gun manufacturers will just sell weapons to criminals is not worth all that time. And I was hoping for a SERIOUS debate.

Clearly that's not going to happen.

 

[rahl]

I don't care. It's inconsistent with the majority of the FACTS it claims to be using to justify the ruling.

No it isn’t.

Therefore it's just a lousy poorly reasoned piece of legislation.

Judges can’t legislate. There is no mechanism for them to do so.

The facts remain. The 2md amendment means exactly what it says it means, as the founders wrote it and explained in their writings. And as every single court that it’s been in front of since 1858 has told you.

 

[CLAX1911]

aka Red Flag laws.

No I can't red flag laws are a way to step around the due process clause. After due process the red flags are long since passed.

Browning BT99 now it's clear you didn't know what we were talking about.

No I know the difference between a red flag laws and due process. I presume you do too and you're just being dishonest as usual.

And the time lost trying to explain it to you was uncalled for.

Especially since your explanation is bunk. But again you established that your time is worthless.

Anyway... somebody who believes that gun manufacturers will just sell weapons to criminals is not worth all that ime.

But you've already established your time is worthless. That's because of most of what you say is mid-wittery nonsense. Nobody here believes yours intelligent as you believe you are.

 

[rahl]

Gun control has worked in every country where it's been made the law of the land.

No it hasn’t.

 

[RF667799]

aka Red Flag laws. So now it's clear you didn't know what we were talking about. And the time lost trying to explain it to you was uncalled for.

Anyway... somebody who believes that gun manufacturers will just sell weapons to criminals is not worth all that time. And I was hoping for a SERIOUS debate.

Isn't it the contention of some of the more intellectually handicapped gun grabbers that manufacturers should be liable for selling firearms to criminals?

Clearly that's not going to happen.

 

[RF667799]

aka Red Flag laws. So now it's clear you didn't know what we were talking about. And the time lost trying to explain it to you was uncalled for.

Wait a minute...you're wanting to deprive people of their property without due process? What kind of fascist bullshit is that?

Anyway... somebody who believes that gun manufacturers will just sell weapons to criminals is not worth all that time. And I was hoping for a SERIOUS debate.

Clearly that's not going to happen.

 

[CLAX1911]

Isn't it the contention of some of the more intellectually handicapped gun grabbers that manufacturers should be liable for selling firearms to criminals?

The thing about holding manufacturer's responsible for what people do with her products is strictly about creating de facto gun control.

 

[CLAX1911]

Wait a minute...you're wanting to deprive people of their property without due process? What kind of fascist bullshit is that?

Fascism.

 

[RF667799]

The thing about holding manufacturer's responsible for what people do with her products is strictly about creating de facto gun control.

Of course it is. And it's ignorant.

 

[RF667799]

Fascism.

Or maybe just naked authoritarianism without any ideology attached. Sheer caveman shit.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course it is. And it's ignorant.

They don't care that it's logical or not the ends justify the means.

That's exactly what happened in Italy and the Soviet Union and Germany couple decades ago.

 

[RF667799]

They don't care that it's logical or not the ends justify the means.

That's exactly what happened in Italy and the Soviet Union and Germany couple decades ago.

You make a good point. There has to be some sort of rationale behind all the lies and stupidity, unless we are to believe that Gun Control Extremists are just literally insane.

 

[CLAX1911]

You make a good point. There has to be some sort of rationale behind all the lies and stupidity, unless we are to believe that Gun Control Extremists are just literally insane.

I think most of them are just ideologically captured. But some of them are smart enough to know exactly what they're doing. They get kind of insulting when you break apart what they're doing.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Wait a minute...you're wanting to deprive people of their property without due process?

No! I want to deprive people of their property WITH due process. That's why Congress passes criminal legislation: to DEFINE due process.

 

[CLAX1911]

No! I want to deprive people of their property WITH due process.

So you must be against red flag laws because that's removing property without due process.

That's why Congress passes criminal legislation: to DEFINE due process.

Adjudication can only happen after a trial or Court proceeding of some sorts for the accused can face their accuser.

Some dictator just determining on a whim that someone shouldn't have guns because they posted a meme they don't like on the internet that's fascism.